Chris Packham - one child policy.

[Meadowland]

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

Nope, serious. I am over 60 though so probably wont be around when the manure hits the fan.

I agree with him in principle however the reality of it all is a different matter. I know as a parent of two children, I have more eco guilt, than say a childless couple who have 6 overseas holidays per year

David Attenborough has said for some time that overpopulation is the elephant in the room no one is prepared to talk about but that we/they absolutely should talk about it.

We will have gone from 2 billion to 8 billion people on this planet in the last 100 years. Just think about that.

It amazes me how often I see people talking on MN about "should we have a fourth child" or "I want another child, my husband doesn't, we already have four" and various variants of. I want an all-inclusive holiday for a month to the Maldives please. But I don't need it. Nor does the planet.

It always amazes me when I see people on their third marriage and having yet more children, so they have had children with every partner. I know a couple who are both on third marriages and have eight children between them because both of them had children in every marriage - as if the marriage can't be "real" unless they prove it with children (the fact that they were on marriage three by their late-30s ought to have helped them on that).

I'd absolutely welcome tax breaks or other advantages to people who choose not to have children at all. They are often the ones at work who pick up all the slack or additional work while people are on maternity leave because most companies don't hire in extra cover. And tax breaks for those who stop at one child. While it's right to support parents, sometimes I think it has swung too far at the expense of non-parents. Let's redress the balance a little and think of the planet.

Shatners, total agreement here.

Good to encourage smaller families but eventually a one child policy will lead to a society where there are no siblings, aunts, uncles or cousins. A whole range of relationships that won’t exist any more.

I don’t think anyone should be having more than two though.

@ShatnersWig

Harsh... but I can't disagree with you at all.

@ShatnersWig your logic is flawed. Very little of that population growth has been in the developed west which is largely responsible for climate change. David Attenborough is hardly a brilliant role model himself spending his working life flying around the world for documentaries!

Moonbeams Didn't mean to necessarily come across as blunt but the problem is that people have skirted around or ignored it for so long, it's no good being anything other than blunt. If Attenborough is saying it, people need to listen.

The problem is that humans are a generally very selfish species. I don't pretend to be an eco warrior, but I'm 45 and it's been clear since I was a child that we as a species have fucked the planet. We've killed off untold species of animal and are still doing so, because we think we've got a right to exist. We have no more right to exist than anything else on this planet.

People talk about "we need to keep having children to look after us in our old age and to ensure the future of the species". We are in NO danger of dying out as my previous figures show. But even if we did, so what?

I once got stopped by a Greenpeace chugger spouting forth doing the "isn't is dreadful what we're doing to the world, what planet are we leaving for our children?" And I said "How many do you have?" And he said "Four". So I replied, truthfully, "I have none, and I think it's bloody hypocritical and irresponsible of you to have four if you supposedly give a damn about our planet". He was gobsmacked.

Maybe, but people in developed countries choosing to have larger families is hardly helping is it?

@ShatnersWig (love the name!). Well said.

@SoftBlocks you think having no aunts/uncles/cousins is worse than having nothing to eat, mass extinction, flooding and uncontrollable fires?

Strange how some eco warriors have big families. Swampy now has four children.

And with two children of his own (which puts him well clear of the national average!) , Attenborough is hardly in a position to push a one child policy without hypocrisy. We have to be very careful about not adopting an imperialistic global policeman role in this argument re developing nations. If we lived in Bogota, Colombia for example, where the death rate for young people is huge, we would also probably view having only one or two children as a huge risk socially and economically.

Why assume that every family and every child born must grow up to impact the planet in this way?

Everyone born needs food and shelter and will therefore impact the planet on some level.

And you have absolutely no control over the lifestyle your children will end up living.

Limiting the children you have is a very sensible decision if you care about the environment.

Ruffle I don't give a rat's arse where the issue is. The fact remains that the world population has increased from 2 billion to 8 billion in 100 years.

It's not just about population, which is why I talked about the fact that man has wiped out a huge number of species and are still doing so. Look at the orang-utans losing their habitats because man thinks chopping down rain forests is a really good thing. That pangolins are being wiped out for Chinese medicines. Humans are an entitled, selfish, arrogant bunch of tossers as a collective species.

Yes, overpopulation is not the only issue, never said it was. But it's clearly a bloody big issue.

Omg @shatnerswig, we have met on here before. It was three children the 'chugger' had last time.

You have no right to lord your childlessness over him. I have already said that I admire people who make this choice not to have children, for the planet. Good for you. But, seeing as you apparently don't care if and how painfully, we die out as a species, (again good for you ), you don't get to tell a person who is genuinely trying to make a difference that you win the morality competition "so there, that's that". You have kids? Don't get to tell me what to do. David Attenborough, who you mentioned, had two dcs. Do you disregard his opinion too?

Also, you can stop engaging in most eco unfriendly activities if you wish. The Greenpeace chugger cannot stop being a parent of three or four children. So you are saying that anyone who has children doesn't get a voice in this conversation. That is frankly fucked up. I can't believe you are still spouting this shit after all this time.

I still agree with your first post though and huge apologies if you are not the same person I think you are!

Attenborough is hardly in a position to push a one child policy without hypocrisy

Try being accurate, Ruffle, people might take you more seriously. Attenborough hasn't pushed a one child policy. He has said that the world needs to talk about overpopulation and that it's an elephant in the room. He has never mentioned a one child policy.

I don’t think he’s pushing for a “one child policy” as such, he’s just asking people to think before having children and the impact it may have?

I live in a area where there are many people with 5 or 6 children, I’m sure they dint even consider the impact on the environment, most are people with money, their children will probably not face the problems with housing when they are older.

I have 2 dc and don’t plan on anymore. I do think people should be able to chose how many kids they have but they should also think about the impact having 2+ children could have on the environment.

Agreed @Lovemusic33.

Children in developed countries use 10x the resources of those in developing countries, so I do think it's all our problems. I doubt women in developing countries want to have 10+ children, but they want some of their children to survive, they need them to work to provide income for the family and they need them to look after them in their old age. Some are also coerced by religion/ husbands/ both into having more and more children. That's a far cry from 'Oh I love babies so much.' We need to improve education for all in the developing world rather than just blaming them for population increase while doing what we want. We also need people to have children, just not loads.
Hopefully people who can bring them up to care about the planet. The way we are going to stop the decline is through science and innovation over decades. That will be done by the young.

moonbeams It was some years ago. I'm pretty sure it was four and not three, but you could be right. It was certainly more than two. I did abbreviate the conversation but he had gone on about cars and all sorts of other facts which made it abundantly clear he was talking bollocks. Probably a paid chugger, rather than an actual environmentalist, so I'd be wary of calling them someone who is genuinely trying to make a differnence

And I'm sorry, but someone who professes to care about the damage we are doing to the planet doesn't have three or four children. Compare their waste with a couple who have one child. How many cars will those children drive? Etc.

Ruffle how about a debate on the position of the Catholic church on contraception? Especially in Africa where millions of children are born to die in pain and suffering due to famine, AIDS, no matter how much money we pour into it. That's not the developed west, is it?

I dont agree with a limit on how many children you have.
Maybe look at why people want so many children.
I'll be honest environmental factors didnt enter my head at all when having my dc. I've got 3 and would love another one purely for my own reasons. I cant realistically have another so know I'm done but I cant bear the thought of being steralized. Dp has been refused.
I wanted them and could afford them etc etc.
Maybe it is because we are used to not having to take into consideration schooling or healthcare to pay for that environmental factors are not a consideration either.

Moonbeams I didn't quite say this, and certainly not in these words.

But, seeing as you apparently don't care if and how painfully, we die out as a species, (again good for you hmm)

I said we have fucked this planet, not other species, and that we have no more right to be here than any other species, many or most of whom were probably here before we were to begin with. I also said even if we did drastically reduce our population, we're in no danger of dying out. We're in more danger of dying out if we don't stop doing fuck all about it.

user1480880826 No but that may be some of the reason why people are reluctant to stop at one.